In this article, the authors highlight the impact of alternate assessment on curriculum content for students with severe disabilities. Alternate assessment is a requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Ammendments of 1997 and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 to ensure that students with the most significant disabilities are included in system accountability measures (Thompson, Lazarus, Clapper, & Thurlow, 2006). The authors review and analyze the purpose and processes of alternate assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association on Mental Retardation. ( 2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports. Washington, DC: Author .
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .
3.
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2005). How states implement alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Journal of DisabilityPolicy Studies , 15(4), 209—220.
4.
Browder, D., Fallin, K., Davis, S., & Karvonen, M. (2003). Consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,38(3), 255—270.
5.
Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.A., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211—223.
6.
Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Fallin, K., & Courtade-Little, G. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternative assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267—283.
7.
Brown, F., & Snell, M. (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
Brown, L., Branston, M.B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age-appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. The Journal of Special Education, 13(1), 81—90.
9.
Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Hey don't forget about me! (pp. 2—15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
10.
Dymond, S., & Orelove, F. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities. Exceptionality,9(3), 109—122.
11.
Flowers, C., Browder, D., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 201—213.
12.
Ford, A., Davern, L., & Schnorr, R. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities: Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 214—222.
13.
Giangreco, M.F. (2006). Foundational concepts and practices for educating students with severe disabilities. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed., pp. 1—27). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
14.
Giangreco, M.F., Cloninger, C.J., & Iverson, F.S. (1993). C.O.A.C.H.: Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children. Baltimore: Brookes .
15.
Hager, D.K., & Slocum, T.A. (2005). Using alternate assessment to improve educational outcomes. Aural Special Education Quarterly,24(1), 54—59.
16.
Heward, W.L. (2000). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
17.
Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R. L. (Eds.). (1988). Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings. Baltimore: Brookes.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (1990)(amended 1997) Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (2004)(reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990). Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108
20.
Johnson, E., & Arnold, N. (2004). Validating an alternate assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 266—275.
21.
Kim, Y., Angell, M., O'Brian, M., Strand, K., Fulk, B., & Watts, E. (2006). Relationships among teacher's perspectives, self-reported practices, and concerns related to the alternate assessment system. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(2), 83—97.
22.
Knowlton, E. (1998). Considerations in the design of personalized curricular support for students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 95—107.
23.
Kohl, F., McLaughlin, M., & Nagle, K. (2006). Alternate achievement standards and assessments: A descriptive investigation of 16 states. Exceptional Children , 73, 107—123.
24.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. ( 1996). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities . Minneapolis: Author.
25.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq ( 2002). Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
26.
Polloway, E.A., Patton, J.R., & Serna, L. (2005). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
27.
Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E., & Stoxen, C.G. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other Disabilities,18(3), 140—149.
28.
Resnick, L.B., & Resnick, D.P. (1993). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Future assessments: Changing views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 273—291). Boston: Kluwer .
29.
Roach, A., Elliott, S., & Webb, N. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence of the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 218—231.
30.
Roach, A.T., & Elliott, S.N. (2006). The influence of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 181—194.
31.
Snell, M. A., & Brown, F. (Eds.). (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
32.
Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349—367.
33.
Thompson, S., Lazarus, S., Clapper, A., & Thurlow, M. (2006). Adequate yearly progress of students with disabilities: Competencies for teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education , 29(2), 137—147.
34.
Tindal, G., McDonald, M., Tedesco, M., Glasgow, A., Almond, P., Craw-ford, L., et al. (2003). Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 482—495.
35.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Title I: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged: Final rule . Washington, DC: Author . Retrieved November 27, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html
36.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2005). 26th annual (2004) report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2004/26th-vol-1.pdf
37.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 327—342.
